my_hat_stinks

Most people think they're middle class and it's easy to punch down, that's really all there is to it.

When I was young I remember asking my parents "are we rich or poor?" and I was told we were middle class, it stands out because at the time I didn't know what that meant. Looking back we were absolutely working class. We were in one of the worst parts of the city and literally just the corner was a street well known for gang violence and crime. The one time I called the cops after being attacked there when they arrived they made sure they were parked in view of security cameras and even called to have sure the cameras were on then and working. Also the only "help" they have was telling me to do it because it wasn't worth the effort.
We were only slightly better off than everyone else living there, we actually owned our home when many of them were in council housing.

There's plenty of examples of software doing this right and displaying each language in the selector in that language, it's hard to say why they've localised it here. Most likely they just didn't consider how the user interacts with that element and localised it the same way they translate everything else, but that could be down to anyone from the developer habitually running everything through localisation to company policy where they couldn't get an exception for that element.

You'd have to ask support for whatever software you're using for more detail, chances are you won't get anything useful back but if you're lucky they might fix it.

The question reads like an XY problem, they describe DB functions for data structures so unless there's some specific reason they can't use a DB that's the right answer. A "spreadsheet for data structures" describes a relational database.

But they need rectangular structure. How do they work on tree structures, like OP has asked?

Relationships. You don't dump all your data in a single table. Take for instance the following sample JSON:

  "users": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "name": "Alice",
      "email": "alice@example.com",
      "favorites": {
        "games": [
          {
            "title": "The Witcher 3",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 9.8
              },
              {
                "name": "PS4",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 9.5
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["RPG", "Action"]
          },
          {
            "title": "Minecraft",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2011,
                "rating": 9.2
              },
              {
                "name": "Xbox One",
                "release_year": 2014,
                "rating": 9.0
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Sandbox", "Survival"]
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "name": "Bob",
      "email": "bob@example.com",
      "favorites": {
        "games": [
          {
            "title": "Fortnite",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2017,
                "rating": 8.6
              },
              {
                "name": "PS5",
                "release_year": 2020,
                "rating": 8.5
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Battle Royale", "Action"]
          },
          {
            "title": "Rocket League",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 8.8
              },
              {
                "name": "Switch",
                "release_year": 2017,
                "rating": 8.9
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Sports", "Action"]
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}

You'd structure that in SQL tables something like this:

Usually no, unless I've left a reply disagreeing then someone else comes along and downvotes them, makes me look like an ass who downvotes anyone I disagree with. I also check my own comments to see if people agree with me but I'll keep the comment up either way, if I do change my mind I'd rather leave a new comment or add stuff in an edit.

It's not too difficult to bot votes on lemmy so they're even more pointless than they are on reddit.

A sect is a sub-group of people unified by beliefs or practice, a denomination is essentially just a large named sect. Christianity is not monolithic and organises into groups, it by definition has sects.

Even if you were right it's such a ridiculously pointless and pedantic argument, it does nothing to further the conversation. You're just trying to use cheap gotchas as a thought-terminating cliche. The only thing you've done is to force us to literally argue semantics, that is not a good look for you.

For completeness, here's a Christian source using the word sect to describe Christian groups, one of the top search engine hits when I searched.

Alice: So, how do you identify?
Bob: Normal.

What's the odds Bob's a bigot? Someone asked how to describe their sexuality, "normal" is not a useful answer.

Fuck that, that's implying any other orientation is abnormal. People should have the right words to describe their sexuality.

Thanks for downvote, but your response is still somewhere between unhelpful and a dog whistle.

The British monarchy primarily "provides" money by owning land and other assets which would otherwise be government-owned. They also "earn" a shitload of money just for existing and still dump significant expenses onto taxpayers.

The important factor isn't whether someone can be addicted (otherwise you're banning nearly everything), it's the harm that addiction causes. As a general rule of thumb physical dependencies like alcohol are more harmful than habitual addictions, but that obviously isn't the whole story.

Caffeine addiction is the same category as alcohol and tobacco but causes so little harm that I don't think anyone is seriously opposed it. On the other end of that scale is something like meth or other hard drugs, generally understood as destructive and has few serious supporters encouraging use. Breaking these addictions is almost always hard and physically taxing, in some cases can even be lethal.

Marijuana addiction is in the same category as most things that make you feel good or form habits so it's harder to nail down a proper scale, but the lower end is probably something like video games; a debilitating addiction is possible but uncommon and most people would oppose a blanket ban on the basis of "can be addictive". Gambling is on the other end can definitely ruin lives. I'd say that's a little worse than coffee. Breaking these addictions is more like breaking a bad habit, it can feel hard for the addict but generally isn't going to kill them.

There is no middle ground between binary options. You have rights or you don't. You hate or you don't. "Just a little bigotry" it's still bigotry. If I say 1+1=2 but you say it's 3 that does not make the right answer 2.5.

Your worldview is literally the middle ground fallacy.

Supporting human rights isn't in any way "gaslighting". It's very reasonable to ban someone for being a piece of shit.